G++ 3.2 transition: How're we doing?
badly. http://people.debian.org/~willy/gcc-transition/ i think technically these are all worthy of an RC bug, but i don't want to file them and you don't want to see them. if your name's on the list: http://people.debian.org/~willy/gcc-transition/maint-packages-2.95 then figure out which of your packages needs to be fixed http://people.debian.org/~willy/gcc-transition/src-packages-2.95 and just try recompiling them with gcc 3.3. if they haven't been uploaded in that long, you could probably take the opportunity to update to the latest Standards-Version while you're at it. yeah, this should probably go to d-d-a, but let's see what kind of response this gets. -- It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject? -- Robert Fisk
Re: G++ 3.2 transition: How're we doing?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but... Can you explain a bit more about your process for generating this list? Why are the packages in the exceptions file in there? It seems that you're not including the c102 packages. Attached is a list of the c102 packages, and its longer than 1. On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 07:24:39PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: badly. http://people.debian.org/~willy/gcc-transition/ -- michael cardenas | GNU/Linux software developer hyperpoem.net | lead software engineer, lindows.com people.debian.org/~mbc | encrypted email preferred http://www.revolutionsummersd.com Another American Revolution is coming... pgpvBJqmUyYjJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: G++ 3.2 transition: How're we doing?
Sorry, I forgot the attachment, but you can all just apt-cache search c102. On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 04:52:32PM -0700, Cardenas wrote: It seems that you're not including the c102 packages. Attached is a list of the c102 packages, and its longer than 1. On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 07:24:39PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: badly. http://people.debian.org/~willy/gcc-transition/ -- michael cardenas | GNU/Linux software developer hyperpoem.net | lead software engineer, lindows.com people.debian.org/~mbc | encrypted email preferred http://www.revolutionsummersd.com Another American Revolution is coming...
Re: G++ 3.2 transition: How're we doing?
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 04:52:32PM -0700, Cardenas wrote: Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but... Can you explain a bit more about your process for generating this list? Why are the packages in the exceptions file in there? There seem to be two types of things in the exceptions list: g++ libraries and Qt version 2. Qt made the c102 transition at the same time as a soname change, and qt2 is meant to stay with the old ABI which Qt3 has the c102 ABI. (that's my understanding anyway) It seems that you're not including the c102 packages. Attached is a list of the c102 packages, and its longer than 1. Because a c102 package has presumably completed the transition to c102? I think you're confusing g++ 3.0 with g++ 3.2. -- - mdz
